RE: [registrars] By-Laws

["Bryan Evans" <bevans@interaccess.com>]

Liz,

Personally, I think we need to address some areas of the bylaws immediately
(disclosure, voting, etc.).  However, much of the rest of the review can be
performed in the background at a more sedate pace by your small group of
volunteers.  I think the schedule you suggested isn't too onorous, but we
might end up going back to the review committee for revisions after the
Accra meeting, prior to adoption.

I do think we need to adopt some changes sooner rather than later, and can
then complete the rest of the review on idle cycles, without impacting other
areas of great importance to the constituency.

-Bryan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Liz Williams
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 2:09 PM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader; Michael D. Palage; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] By-Laws
>
>
> Ross
>
> Many thanks for that.  In your last paragraph, you've offered to provide a
> list with recommendations.  I'd be grateful if you could do that - perhaps
> in the order I've suggested in the framework document so that we
> can collect
> information in an orderly fashion.
>
> I'd be delighted to hear from others directly their views and their
> recommendations for change.  What we're really looking for is a toolbox to
> achieve our work - any tools that help us achieve our goals as an RC are
> useful.  We are then able to craft those into bylaws (or amendments) that
> are designed to achieve specific results.
>
> Kind regards.
>
> Liz
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> To: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>; <registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 6:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [registrars] By-Laws
>
>
> > > Therefore I put forward to our Name Council candidates the following
> > > question: where do you stand on this issue: are by-laws a priority or
> > should
> > > they wait. I and the other registrars await your response.
> >
> > To answer the question posed, I don't think that it is the place of any
> > Names Council rep (candidate or otherwise) to make a
> determination on what
> > is and what isn't a priority of the Constituency. The
> postitions of our NC
> > reps within the NC must necessarily be reflective of the Constituency's
> > wishes. The trick is ensuring an open line of bi-directional
> communication
> > between the Constituency membership and the Names Council
> representatives.
> I
> > think I touched on this pretty clearly earlier this week in my
> acceptance
> of
> > nomination.
> >
> > My opinion as a member of this constituency is a little bit more
> involved...
> >
> > I believe that the issue is quite simple actually.
> >
> > First, we as a constituency must define who we are and what we
> stand for.
> > The foundations for this have been bubbling undercurrents since the
> original
> > formation of this group back in early 1999 - its time that this mission
> > statement be written down and agreed to. From this, defining
> what our long
> > and short term goals are becomes a much simpler issue. Once our
> goals have
> > been decided, defining the objectives, tactics and assigning
> resources is
> > almost a trivial exercise. Of course, measuring our progress
> and refining
> > our approach is an ongoing effort that we can't forget about either.
> >
> > In this particular case, I think that a discussion concerning roles &
> > procedures needs to happen. Whether this results in a formal
> amendment to
> > the by-laws, or a simple statement of constituency procedure is
> irrelevant
> > to me.
> >
> > For instance, while the by-laws indicate that the Names Council
> > representatives should consult with the constituency where possible to
> > ensure that the views and interests of the RC are represented properly,
> how
> > far in practice does this and should this go. Should the NC
> reps vote as a
> > bloc based on a predetermined position like they do in some other
> > constituencies? Or is a more dynamic model preferred by the
> constituency?
> > And so on.
> >
> > As far as procedures go, further definition is also required. How we
> > determine what the views of the constituency are is very important and
> while
> > I think that we currently use a very enlightened and
> appropriate model, it
> > is not clear to all registrars what this model is. A concise
> statement of
> > what the practices are and what they should be will assist us in
> developing
> > more cogent positions quicker. If each registrar understands how an idea
> can
> > move through the constituency and get passed to the NC reps for
> > consideration by the Names Council, we stand a much better
> chance of both
> > increasing participation within the constituency (thus increasing the
> > legitimacy and diversity of the proposals) and finalizing policy issues
> such
> > as you describe in a much more expedient manner. With some
> luck, a defined
> > transfers process will become part of our operating contracts sometime
> > during March. By my count, this puts the turn-around on this particular
> > issue at roughly one year. Establishing consensus policy
> necessarily takes
> > time, but the Constituency shouldn't be adding to the amount of time
> > required by unnecessarily delaying proposals within the constituency.
> >
> > I am a big fan of organizing the organization - at the very least, it
> allows
> > each of us to determine where we stand at any given point in time.*But*,
> we
> > should consider only the minimal structural work  necessary to move our
> > collective objectives forward. This need not be a complete review of the
> > by-laws as I mentioned earlier, statements of procedure may suffice at
> this
> > particular point in time. Whatever it is that we ultimately decide upon,
> we
> > must ensure that it doesn't distract us or prevent us from achieving our
> > operational policy goals as you mention below. I would agree that a
> complete
> > overhaul would be distractive at this point.
> >
> > In other words, we need to take some very important steps to make sure
> that
> > the Constituency evolves in a manner that appropriately benefits its
> > membership. At the same time, we can't let this distract us from the
> issues.
> > It really comes down to a question of priorities and a decision
> on what is
> > really important to the Constituency.
> >
> > If there is any interest, I am happy to put together a list, with
> > recommendations, of where our current structure and processes may hinder
> our
> > operational policy development efforts. I will leave it as a matter for
> the
> > constituency to decide if dealing with these hindrances requires a
> > modification to the by-laws or just simple acceptance as a statement of
> > constituency practice that we operate by.
> >
> > -rwr
> >
> >
>